Explained: Will the accused in the Pune Porsche case get the same benefits as the minor convict in the Nirbhaya gang rape, will he be tried as an adult?

Ronit Kawale
Ronit Kawale - Senior Editor
9 Min Read

New Delhi: The Juvenile Justice Board has canceled the bail of the 17-year-old accused in the Pune Porsche car accident case. Two people died in an accident caused by dangerous driving. The board has ordered to keep the accused boy in the observation home till June 5. Earlier, the board had granted bail to the accused by ordering him to go to the regional transport office and read the traffic rules and write an essay of 300 words about road accidents and measures to avoid them. The government had filed a review petition against this order under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act. In the same petition, a demand has also been made to treat the accused as an adult and prosecute him under sections 15 and 18(3) of the Juvenile Act, the decision on which is yet to be taken. First of all let us understand the whole matter.

WhatsApp Group Join Now
Telegram Group Join Now

This was the case, there was no number plate on the vehicle.

According to the FIR, on Sunday, the 17-year-old son of a rich builder from Pune drove a Porsche car at a speed of 200 kmph under the influence of alcohol and hit a motorcycle in Kalyani Nagar area with the uncontrolled car. As a result, two people riding the motorcycle died on the spot. There was no number plate on the Porsche car at the time of the incident.

Pune Porsche Accident: Bail of minor accused in Pune Porsche car accident case cancelled, big decision of Juvenile Justice Board

FIR is filed under these sections, understand each one

Now to understand the matter, first of all we have to understand the sections which have been imposed by the police while registering the FIR. According to Supreme Court lawyer Anil Singh Srinet, Indian Penal Code i.e. IPC sections 304-A (causing death by negligence), 279 (dangerous driving), 337 (endangering life and causing minor hurt). And 338 (endangering someone's life, causing fracture etc.), 427 (causing damage to property by vehicle). At the same time, sections 184 (dangerous driving), 119 (disobeying traffic signals) and 177 (general provisions for offences) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Apart from this, a case of culpable homicide has also been registered under section 304 of IPC. A case of dangerous driving has also been registered under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no speed section here.

Will Nirbhaya get the same benefits as the gangrape accused?

According to Advocate Anil Singh Srinet, under the current laws, if the accused is below 18 years of age, he will be tried under the Juvenile Justice Act. In such cases, he will be kept in a juvenile correctional home for a maximum of 3 years. Whereas, in the Pune Porsche case, under section 304-A, the accused can be kept there for a maximum of 2 years. In the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape case, one of the accused was a minor. He was sentenced to only 3 years. However, at that time the law was also helpless, because the same punishment was fixed for minors as well.

pune car accident

Sections 15 and 18(3) of the Juvenile Act are the deciding factor

According to advocate Anil Singh Srinet, if the Juvenile Justice Board considers the crime of the accused to be serious after a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2019, then under Section 18 (3) the accused should be tried as an adult. . Can order release. This can also happen in the Pune Porsche case. In such a situation, this case will run in the trial court. This decision will depend on the Juvenile Board.

If the accused in Pune Porsche car accident case is tried as a minor, he can be kept in a juvenile home for a maximum of 2 years. Its entire responsibility now rests on the Juvenile Board, which can decide whether the accused should be tried as an adult or not.

Anil Singh Srinet, Advocate Supreme Court

If he is treated as an adult, the punishment can be up to 10 years

According to advocate Anil Singh Srinet, if the accused is tried as an adult, then instead of section 304-A, section 304 of IPC will have to be registered in the FIR. Because the maximum punishment under 304-A is 2 years. The maximum punishment under section 337 and 338 is also 2 years each. On the other hand, if the case is tried under section 304, then the accused can be jailed for up to 10 years and fined.

pune hit and run case

What is the difference between section 304 and 304-A of IPC?

Under Section 304 of the IPC, it is seen that if the accused causes someone's death and the accused knew that his act could lead to death, then he can be punished with life imprisonment or 10 years of imprisonment and fine. At the same time, if someone else's death has occurred due to any act of the accused, but he did not know that his act would lead to death, then it will be considered unintentional murder. In such a situation, there can be a punishment of 10 years imprisonment or fine or both. This is a non-bailable offense. At the same time, under 304-A, there is a provision of two years imprisonment and fine for death due to negligence. This is a bailable offense.

Navbharat TimesOpinion: 300 words article and bail to the person who killed 2 people… what kind of justice is this?

Important changes made in the law after Nirbhaya case

Advocate Anil Singh Srinet says that the Pune Porsche case should also be registered under section 304 of the IPC. The law was changed in 2013 after the Nirbhaya gangrape case of 2012. The Criminal (Amendment) Act, 2013 states that if a minor is around 18 years of age, he can be tried as an adult. But, before doing this, the nature of the crime has to be seen that how serious and heinous the crime is and in such a case there is a need to give a punishment of more than 7 years.

In 2016, the minor was tried as an adult.

It was April 4, 2016, when a hit and run case came to light in Delhi. In this, a 16-year-old accused ran over a marketing executive with his Mercedes car, killing him. During the hearing of the case in June, the Juvenile Justice Board had said that the accused had committed a serious crime. At the time of the crime, the accused was mature enough to know that driving in this manner could have dangerous consequences.

If the accused is seen in CCTV as an adult then why not a bone test?

Advocate Anil Singh Srinet says that the accused looks like an adult in the CCTV footage and video. He appears to be more than 18 years old. In such a situation, the police should also conduct an ossification test, which is commonly called a bone test, so that it can be known what the real age of the accused is. However, high school certificate or birth certificate is given more preference than any such test.

PressNews24 provides latest news, bollywood news, breaking news hollywood, top tech news, business standard news, indian economy news, world economy news, travel news, mumbai news, latest news mumbai loksabha election 2024, video viral news, delhi news, Only at PressNews24.in

Leave a comment